MiWater

It’s Been Known For Years The Sulfide Mining Economic Promises Are Weak

Posted by MiWater Team on January 31, 2010 · Comments 

white-housePreviously, the non-partisan Center For Michigans’ Phil Power wrote a piece called “U.P. sulfide mine would mean a few short-term jobs, numerous long-term environmental worries.” This limited economic benefit – at the expense of other industries and other jobs, is highlighted:

Only problem is, by Kennecott’s own admission, the 120 or so mining jobs would last only around 10 years while the mine is being built and in operation.  And economists and businessmen wonder what happens to recreation, tourism, hunting and fishing – the long term economic future of the region – if the mine pollutes the area.

Thing is? Almost all sulfide mines pollute. Later on in the piece,

It’s everybody’s bad luck that the ore deposit for the Eagle Prospect mine wound up right in the middle of some of the most environmentally valuable and sensitive woods and waters in all of Michigan.

But merely because rich metals are discovered in a uniquely priceless and fragile environment is no necessary argument those metals should be mined. Suppose a valuable gold deposit were to be discovered right at the foot of Mount Rushmore.  Would it really make sense to open a mine there that might destroy a national monument?

Want to know more about where mines like this would be? See the impact on Coaster Brook Trout.

 

Filed under Commentary, Economic & Enviromental Impact · Tagged with , , , ,

  • JoeHill3
    The canards just keep on coming. The latest is the old tired story about
    mining not being of sufficient duration to provide long term employment or a
    stable economic base. If that were true, the population of the Upper Peninsula
    would be one-half of what it is.

    When the Tilden Iron Ore mine was built, citizens were told that it was a twenty
    year project and that the mine would probably be closed by 1995. Changes in
    technology made ore body discovery more effective and changes in engineering
    made processing lower and lower grades of ore financially viable--giving the lie
    to Power's assertions going back to his fictional article about mining in 2007 that
    anti-mining forces love to quote. While that article may have applicabilty somewhere,
    it is not true for the U.P. Nearly twenty years after the Tilden was supposed to be closed,
    it still employes over 1000 workers and provides much needed wealth via taxation to
    municipalities, schools, and townships. Same for the Empire Mine, same for the White
    Pine Copper Mine (the largest so-called sulfide mine in Michigan). But, some people never
    let facts get in the way of strong opinions, as opinions are more fun.
  • rbmaki
    The double standard of sulfide versus iron mining is a sad and pathetic argument. It is like buying garden grown tomatoes versus hydroponic. They look the same, taste negligibly different, and have debatable differences in nutrition. Iron mining can pollute and has the potential for continued pollution after mine closure. A sulfide mine could pollute and has the potential for continued pollution after mine closure. Iron has waste rock, so do sulfide mines. This argument isn’t even an apples to oranges argument, its apples to apples.

    What’s the main difference in the viewpoints of people? Sulfide mining is new and ‘scary’… wouldn’t you think our local ancestors felt the same way in the 1800s when the iron mines opened? They are still here and have become so common place that people ended up overlooking their indiscretions and problems to target their residual misgivings toward the new and different mine style. Hmmm… overlooking indiscretions and targeting a certain group would in any other context be considered discrimination. And, lo and behold, it is!

    “U.P. sulfide mine would mean a few short-term jobs, numerous long-term environmental worries.” Just 2 years ago, CCI announced it would hedge the closure of Empire by building new technology to provide jobs until 2018. Wait a second, that’s less than 10 years. Oh, but its CCI, so that’s fine. They then laid off hundreds because of economic uncertainty. Around the same time, Rio Tinto was painted as unstable because they held off on construction of a mine.

    CCI will be closing in the coming years, and what’s to say there won’t be long term environmental damage? There are already 2 craters that look amazingly and unnaturally colorful on aerial photos in Google Earth. Their downtown Marquette site is unusable due to selenium pollution… if that’s not long term, why is it still there? Tourism has thrived even with CCI raping the land of iron and dumping their wastes in their near vicinity. When is the last time you saw a naturally occurring angular/stepped mountain?

    “… merely because rich metals are discovered in a uniquely priceless and fragile environment is no necessary argument those metals should be mined.” The land was much more untouched in the 1800s when iron mines sprung up like wild flowers in the general Marquette area, but there was little issue then. How about those nice new retail shops that appeared in Marquette Township recently that felled hundreds of trees and rerouted wetlands and hydrologic features? Odd, that didn’t seem to be a problem for their dozens of employees that one would hope will have a long term job, nor those living in the area that want new jobs and opportunities for their community.

    In the economy of today’s world, nobody can be sure of their future or the future of their job… just look at the auto industry. The UP needs jobs now and we need development now. The land up here may be beautiful, but what good will the beauty do if the people that live here and want to enjoy it are going hungry or can’t afford to utilize it. Environmental protections are in place and enforced for a reason, to allow industry to proceed while minimizing impact on nature – exactly what a mine in the 21st century would do!
  • jordan
    this is awsome
blog comments powered by Disqus
MiWater